If this thread was started today it would have very different responses

Someone with a GRC has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived solely as a women for more than 2 years and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.

None of which is relevant as to whether they are a risk.

deepwatersolo That is a strawman argument EXACTLY!

Karen Jones, a transwoman, murderer and rapist actually blamed their gender dysphoria for the attempted rape of a woman.

Their psychiatrist blamed it for the killing.

A psychiatrist's report later diagnosing Gender Identity Disorder as a significant factor in Jones' claimed loss of control before the killing.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5440153/amp/Trans-convict-invited-speak-House-Lords.html

Neither gender dysphoria, nor a piece of paper, renders men no risk.

Stop gaslighting women.

Not true. And I will call you out every time you make something up, as this is the third time. My exact statement was - ‘There is so cut off or distinction.. I can’t get my head around the thinking? Men are rapists, and groomers and statistically you’re far more likely to be abused by a man... but we don’t say that men can’t be in positions of trust? Such as teachers or doctors or gynachologists? So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please’
Please don’t twist things, and make up things in your head. I never said transpeople can’t be teachers.

You are not making any fucking sense. Why did you raise those issues specficially then? Why did you randomly add in a completely irrelevant non-existant issue with regards to positions of trust

You raised a point that has nothing to do with this and has nothing to do with anyone here. Why did you say anything about ‘positions of trust’ then? If you’re not then claiming that people here have said it, what’s the point of inserting it into the conversation? You’re not following any logic whatsoever

Another vid from Lisa Muggeridge that explains haow abusive and nonabusive relationships cannot coexist. Once one party tries to use violence and coercion to change power relations, the relationship cannot go back to 'normal'. The TRAs tried to subordinate the rights of women, and they were not outliers but broadly and institutionally supported (from Stonewall, to academia...).

EarlyWalker, ok, there's a nuance you appear to be missing. I'm not crazy about colluding in the idea that a man is in fact a woman if they really believe they are, so that's one thing, and all the encouragement towards 'tolerance' won't change my feelings on that.

But feelings aside, this is not about lumping all transwomen together as dangerous, any more than it is about suggesting all men are dangerous. If all men were categorically dangerous, we would be entirely right to exclude them from a hell of a lot more than we do.

But as it is a proportion of men, that we cannot identify on sight, are dangerous, so we have specific places and restrictions on where they can go and what they can do. As transwomen are a physical subset of men as a group, and retain as far as we can tell, the same risk factors, they are included in the group that has restricted access.

Most men of my acquaintance are decent sorts, and I probably wouldn't panic if they had to enter a female space as I know them, but other women would have an issue, therefore I don't have the right to override their consent and the decent men of my acquaintance would understand that the boundaries need to be respected because they are decent men.

Does any of that help?

I completely understand we should do everything in our power to prevent dangerous predators having easy access to women. But for me personally, I don’t see all trans people as that and would be happy for someone with a GRC to share space.

I don't see all trans people as predators either.

Nor do I see all men as predators.

So how do you think we should keep the predators out?

I completely understand we should do everything in our power to prevent dangerous predators having easy access to women. But for me personally, I don’t see all trans people as that and would be happy for someone with a GRC to share space.

It's so illogical.

What, please tell me, what is the difference between a man, and a man with a GRC?

i do however think that grouping all people together as one is not healthy

So you don't think that it's a good idea to separate men and women.

Or which men should we take out of the Man Group? Because personally, if I had to chose a subgroup of males to be forced to get naked next to, it would be gay men, not heterosexual transgender men.

So let's do that. Homosexual men (however they identify) are now allowed access to women's spaces.

Now, how shall we police that? Because I have a feeling that some heterosexual men might say "don't worry, I'm gay!" and come in. Don't you?

So what is the process currently? If a man comes into a women’s toilet, not even claiming to be a transgender person. Say a percent just walks in, what protection is there to say you cannot do this? If we put trans to the side for a moment?

I can ask him to leave, other women will join in, I can also call management and know management will be on the women's side.

So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

That is a strawman argument. Nobody would deny them to train as a midwife, as long as the pregnant woman has a right to reject the transwoman because they are male. The problem arises, when a woman, who would be free to reject a man as rape counsillor, midwife... you name it, cannot do so because 'TWAW'. This means subverting reality for the compulsory validation of someone's identity.

When organisations like LGBT YOUTH Scotland submitted responses to the Women and Equalities commission staing their support for:

• cross dressers to be included in the definition of transgender
• de medicalisation of the process, while at the same time....
• promoting transisition for under 16s
• promoting the use of binders and puberty blockers in children
• advising schools that parents need not be informed when a male child with gender ID issues share sleeping accomodation with girls
• advises schools to reeducate children who object to males with gender ID issues in their changing room.

LGBT Youth says that it is concerned with young people aged 13-25, yet in the last year it has been actively targetting primary schools in Scotland.

Interestingly, ALL the schools they have adopted their 'LGBT Schools Charter' are non-denominational schools. They have not yet found a way in to the many Catholic schools. That would indeed be a coup.

I think it’s best you read before you speak

Oh, the irony. Have you done any research at all as to why men forcing themselves into female spaces is so concerning ? You are coming across like you expect the rest of us to do it for you. Like that hasn't before many times over on these boards.

You were doing a reasonable (ish) job of hiding your agenda until that little gem popped out.

Bad people have taken advantage of a minority group and have used them as scapegoats to enable themselves to get access to women easier

This false dichotomy between "good trans" and "bad trans" (aka "not true trans") is gaslighting.

Quite frankly there is no way for a woman to tell the difference, from looking at or talking to and asking them, which males are genuinely suffering from dysphoria and have a GRC from someone who has no GRC and is just a cross dressing flasher, or any old dude in a wig saying "I am a woman"
So why are you pressurising us to determine the difference when we can't?

Enough is enough. Just NO. To all of them.

No is a complete sentence.

That’s not how it works is it? The fact is, if any male is a threat, all males must be excluded.

This.

It's really not that difficult to get your head around.

Male people, as a class, are a danger to female people, as a class. Therefore, we keep out all males, icluding the nice ones, and the gay ones, and the ones who are disabled, from female spaces even though they might be "less of a risk" to women.

This means that, not only that women are statistically safer (18 times safer, as the recent FOI request to councils showed), but also and almost as importantly, women feel safer.

Until very recently I thought a transwoman was a person who had undergone some pretty serious operations as well as counselling and hormone therapy etc. Genetically not female but a woman for all intents and purposes.

Now a transwoman can apparently be a man who has woken up one day and decided to wear a dress and make up.

That’s why my mind has changed

But surely, the answer is not to dismiss all trans people as a danger to woman

NOBODY has said that. We exclude all men, is anyone using that defence for them? That not all men are a danger to women so why do we keep them all out? That’s not how it works is it? The fact is, if any male is a threat, all males must be excluded.

I think it’s best you read before you speak, as you keep trying to say that I’ve said things that I quite obviously haven’t.

It’s the logical conclusion of what you were saying. I was asking you, is that what you are suggesting?

And please, you claimed earlier that people didn’t want transgender people as teachers etc when that has not been said at MN. Cut out the passive aggressive behaviour.

If Self ID is rejected (fingers crossed!) then legally, you can only access woman’s space with a GRC is that correct?

No, because it appears that the exemptions under the Equality Act 2010 are very difficult to invoke, and can only be done so on a case by case basis. Most spaces don't try to use them.

Self-ID is not currently law (so what we have currently is not based on a self-ID GRA), but yet most women's spaces, including prisons, hospital wards, sports, and changing rooms, are already open to penis-waggling transwomen.

The exemptions under the EA are a chocolate teapot.

I have always considered myself a friend of the LGBT movement, have had trans friends etc. One friend who used to call herself trans but who was actually intersex (Klinefelter) told me in the 90s the TRA movement was full of freaks and weirdos (her words) and at the time I thought that was indicative of self-loathing. How things have moved on since then. Academics, lesbians and feminists have been raising this as a problem for many years and I guess just waiting for the penny to drop for everyone else.

I have absolutely no issue with folk who get on with it and transition without incident. There are feminist allies who are trans and their accounts of their lived experience are valuable. There isn't automatically enmity between feminists and transpeople, but I won't be told to shut up and go to the back of the bus because I have a vagina and it doesn't much matter to me who is saying it or if they're wearing a dress.

Something else that has changed for me is that I'm in my 50s now and I'm just not prepared to acquiesce or give positive attention to this kind of bullshit. Maybe it's the menopause.

Exactly. It's not women who have thrown transsexuals under the bus. It's stonewall and transactivists.

You're targeting the wrong people. In fact you're blaming the very people who predicted this.

Yep. Not our problem. We didn't fuck it up massively by putting a load of dodgy non-dysphoric paraphiliacs under the trans umbrella: Stonewall did.

And when it says in articles they have had surgery, often it actually means they've had breasts put on or had facial feminising surgery. It is misleading.